[Bug 22344] [Shadow]: Distribute into <shadow>, project into older shadow root

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22344

--- Comment #21 from Hayato Ito <hayato@chromium.org> ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> (In reply to comment #17) 
> > If we encounter an active shadow insertion point in the outer 'for' loop,
> > just remember the position of the active insertion point and skip the
> > traversal of subtree of the active shadow insertion point.
> > Afte the loop, we continue to distribute POOL to content elements in the
> > subtree of the active insertion point.
> > That should be done in O(n).
> 
> To clarify: What you have written above is a proposal about the order of
> distribution of <content> elements.
> 
> I think your algorithm is confusing because we're also talking about
> reprojection for <shadow> which would replenish the pool, etc.

The algorithms in the doc already support the new proposal. There are 4
functions:
  RESOLVE_DISTRIBUTION(TREE_SCOPE)
  POPULATE_CHILDREN_OF(NODE)
  DISTRIBUTE_POOL(SHADOW_ROOT, POOL)
  DISTRIBUTE_NODE(NODE, INSERTION_POINT)

The quoted function, DISTRIBUTE_POOL, is one of the subroutines and a necessary
piece to support the new proposal. You can see all functions in section '5
Distributions'.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iuf2DgzwKfMTscAX_xsymO73NmZ4NVYvfyFgUU4YINo/edit?usp=sharing

So far, I have succeeded to implement the new proposal in the spec.
I couldn't find any flaw in the new proposal in theory.
I could say that'd be possible as of now.



> 
> > My proposal is use 'defer' attribute in content element such as:
> > 
> > > <shadow><content defer></content></shadow>
> 
> I think we should go for something more flexible like letting the user
> specify an order. But I would love to know what web developers think.
> 
> > Like <scrit src='..' defer> is evaluated later, distributing nodes for
> > <content defer> is deferred.
> > I prefer this explicit approach than an implicit hidden rule.
> 
> I think other proposals are preferable to hard-coding <content> in <shadow>
> to come last. I can think of cases where you *don't* want content in
> <shadow> to come last.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 02:34:10 UTC